About your Search

20120928
20121006
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 169 (some duplicates have been removed)
in restaurants in california since 1995. in 2010, we strengthened the law, through a local ordinance. so this is not really anything new. this has been on the books for quite some time. the other thing i wanted to add is that even if there were no tobacco product being used in the hukas -- and i do believe that having the tobacco products there, open in a container, it would seem that it would be very likely that the customers would put the huka tobacco product on the hot stones if there are huka pipes present. that this is sort of similar to the phenomenon of electronic cigarettes, which now were recently banned by the airport commission and they're banned on airplanes. and this is even though there's no tobacco that is used in electronic cigarettes, the problem is that it gives the public the impression that smoking is permitted in areas where it's not permitted, and it also gives the impression to the public that there's no consequence to smoking in areas where smoking is not permitted. tobacco is still the number one cause of preventable deaths in the united states, and the two major
that actually smoking has been banned in restaurants in california since 1995. in 2010, we strengthened the law, through a local ordinance. so this is not really anything new. this has been on the books for quite some time. the other thing i wanted to add is that even if there were no tobacco product being used in the hukas -- and i do believe that having the tobacco products there, open in a container, it would seem that it would be very likely that the customers would put the huka tobacco product on the hot stones if there are huka pipes present. that this is sort of similar to the phenomenon of electronic cigarettes, which now were recently banned by the airport commission and they're banned on airplanes. and this is even though there's no tobacco that is used in electronic cigarettes, the problem is that it gives the public the impression that smoking is permitted in areas where it's not permitted, and it also gives the impression to the public that there's no consequence to smoking in areas where smoking is not permitted. tobacco is still the number one cause of preventable deaths in the u
joined the uc davis school of law in 2004, following a clerkship with judge cal braise of the united states court of appeals for the second circuit. interest include election law, administrative law, statutory interpretation, constitutional law and property and natural resources law. he is a resident of san francisco's mission district. we are honored to work chris almendorf. [ applause ] >> thank you very much and thank you to all of the candidates who are here today. we're very fortunate to be joined by six candidates and what i hope will soon be seven. all of the candidates have agreed to ask their supporters to be respectful of other candidates and the audience and to maintain quiet during the forum. i ask you to respect that commitment. every aspect of this forum will be equally fair to all participating candidates. as everyone here knows candidate debates are often limited to latitudinal appears and personal attack. our debate focuses on critical areas of policy disagreement among the leading candidates. so this end the league of women voters of san francisco and the san franc
, we strengthened the law, through a local ordinance. so this is not really anything new. this has been on the books for quite some time. the other thing i wanted to add is that even if there were no tobacco product being used in the hukas -- and i do believe that having the tobacco products there, open in a container, it would seem that it would be very likely that the customers would put the huka tobacco product on the hot stones if there are huka pipes present. that this is sort of similar to the phenomenon of electronic cigarettes, which now were recently banned by the airport commission and they're banned on airplanes. and this is even though there's no tobacco that is used in electronic cigarettes, the problem is that it gives the public the impression that smoking is permitted in areas where it's not permitted, and it also gives the impression to the public that there's no consequence to smoking in areas where smoking is not permitted. tobacco is still the number one cause of preventable deaths in the united states, and the two major factors that have reduced smoking in san franc
identifying ways our ethic laws could be strengthened. as supervisors, what if anything would you propose to strength the city's ethics laws. i will start with mr. davis. >> strong ethic laws are essential. what is happening with our sunshine task force and hope davis can speak to this since she recently served on the task force. these need to be strengthened and one problem we have is around enforcement. i would like to see more of the ethical violations of larger committees, some of which are operating, for instance, in some shady areas of law. one was the run he ed run, the committee for mayor ed lee last year and the campaigns that aren't swaying the politics of city, the way the run ed run campaign did. so i think that is one the issues and improving our good government and ethic laws in san francisco. >> miss breed, would you like to address the question? do you want me to repeat it? >> yes. >> sure. a recent chief civil grand jury report, at the request of supervisor campos the city conducted a comparison of laws identifying ways our ethic laws could be strengthened. as su
by tourists. legislation that we have before us strengthens an existing law, to restrict this practice known as hotel evasion. in 1981 the passage of the apartment conversion ordinance, which is second, 41-a of the administrative code made it illegal for residential propertis with four or more units to be occupied pore for less than 30 days. unfortunate le what we have found in recent years there has been a problem that has persisted due to enforcement challenges and a loophole in the law. in recent years we have seen many corporations sidestep this law by signing long-term loiss with property owner ises that their non-san franciscan employees can use the apartment as short-term corporate housing or tourism residential housing. so for example, as an example, in my district, the tenants at the large golden gateway [kph-efpl/] have experienced corporate employees and guests that come in and out of their buildings just like a hotel. based on rent board record there's are an estimate of dozens of these units that are leased by corporate entities. this not only creates quality of life issues for
. legislation that we have before us strengthens an existing law, to restrict this practice known as hotel evasion. in 1981 the passage of the apartment conversion ordinance, which is second, 41-a of the administrative code made it illegal for residential propertis with four or more units to be occupied pore for less than 30 days. unfortunate le what we have found in recent years there has been a problem that has persisted due to enforcement challenges and a loophole in the law. in recent years we have seen many corporations sidestep this law by signing long-term loiss with property owner ises that their non-san franciscan employees can use the apartment as short-term corporate housing or tourism residential housing. so for example, as an example, in my district, the tenants at the large golden gateway [kph-efpl/] have experienced corporate employees and guests that come in and out of their buildings just like a hotel. based on rent board record there's are an estimate of dozens of these units that are leased by corporate entities. this not only creates quality of life issues for neighbors
appreciate their work and we cooperate yearly, thing that is are covered by federal law, it's not an easy solution, but the vast majority of san francisco businesses provide insurance and the vast, vast majority of son fra*ns businesses are spending required amounts of money, every survey and report by your agency show that and supervisor campos has acknowledge hated but there is an issue with some categories of business, but we're working together, small business associations, the chamber on educating employers and employees on the rights and obligations under this law. we've worked with television ads on cable television, the city, websites, direct communication with members, thousands of employers have been communicated with by our organizations and by the city to understand how to make this work for the employee and how to make it work financially for the employer because you have to remember in the last half a dozen years, the cost of small business to employ entry level workers in san francisco has gone up 50%. that is health mandate, sick leave, minimum wage, things we believe in,
size would have the same spending obligations as laid out in the law, and he and i have had many conversations where he's made it clear where that was always his understanding, and late 2010, several workers and their advocates came to my office to explain that in their view, employers had found and were exploiting a loophole in the health and security ordinance, a small number of businesses of employers were voiding the majority of their spending requirement by allocating money to what is known as a health reimbursement account. often, using these accounts to severely restrict the types of services that the accounts could be used for often providing no notice of the existence of the accounts to their workers and then reclaiming the majority of money allocated to those accounts at the end of the year. we also discovered that many of these employers were profiting from the law by charging surcharges in the name of employee health care and then pocketing the majority of the money that was collected from consumers in san francisco. so, given that workers were not receiving the healt
the uc davis school of law in 2004, following a clerkship with judge cal braise of the united states court of appeals for the second circuit. interest include election law, administrative law, statutory interpretation, constitutional law and property and natural resources law. he is a resident of san francisco's mission district. we are honored to work chris almendorf. [ applause ] >> thank you very much and thank you to all of the candidates who are here today. we're very fortunate to be joined by six candidates and what i hope will soon be seven. all of the candidates have agreed to ask their supporters to be respectful of other candidates and the audience and to maintain quiet during the forum. i ask you to respect that commitment. every aspect of this forum will be equally fair to all participating candidates. as everyone here knows candidate debates are often limited to latitudinal appears and personal attack. our debate focuses on critical areas of policy disagreement among the leading candidates. so this end the league of women voters of san francisco and the san francisco pu
of these employers were profiting from the law by charging surcharges in the name of employee health care and then pocketing the majority of the money that was collected from consumers in san francisco. so, given that workers were not receiving the health care that we all intended them to receive, it was unfair that the vast majority of businesses and something else that we found out that in fact the vast majority of businesses are covered by the health and security ordinance in san francisco are doing the right thing and are following not only the letter but the spirit of the law. and so it was in response to these concerns that were raised to us by workers, by consumer advocates and a number of people in the community that we introduce legislation to close this loophole sx, the legislation that we introduced was a very simple reasonable piece of legislation that said that when the health and security ordinance says that you have to spend money on health care, the word spend or expenditure means spend expenditure, means making an expenditure, not collecting money and not spending that, a
by federal law, it's not an easy solution, but the vast majority of san francisco businesses provide insurance and the vast, vast majority of son fra*ns businesses are spending required amounts of money, every survey and report by your agency show that and supervisor campos has acknowledge hated but there is an issue with some categories of business, but we're working together, small business associations, the chamber on educating employers and employees on the rights and obligations under this law. we've worked with television ads on cable television, the city, websites, direct communication with members, thousands of employers have been communicated with by our organizations and by the city to understand how to make this work for the employee and how to make it work financially for the employer because you have to remember in the last half a dozen years, the cost of small business to employ entry level workers in san francisco has gone up 50%. that is health mandate, sick leave, minimum wage, things we believe in, things that as san franciscans we support but things that have a tre
or the observation of mr. warfield. and also the observation of mr. nee. because the sunshine law, 65.24 is far more clear than the public record section as defined in the state law. and i would like to point out that it says in section 67.36 of sunshine that, the ordinance supersedes all other local laws. this is the governing law of official conduct in san francisco. so if i go to the san francisco police department and i want to look at records of a case that is closed. i shouldn't have any problem from the san francisco police department saying no, we can't share any tape recordings with you. or we can't share any evidence that was collected both audio and video with you. where in fact if the case is closed, those are public records. specifically if i want to apply those to commissioner harris. this is important. and i am surprised you looking at me shocked. this is what you get if you spend 10 months on ross mirkarimi railroading him and 10 days trying to push this through. and it doesn't give us an idea of the information and i excuse me me mr. st. croix i was not able to read the documents of
law and sunshine ordinance and we're given the run around over illegal elections. there's millions of dollars being stolen by the councils, the residence councils. it's off the hook and nobody talks about it. i want to mention a couple of points on the rush through this process here. there's a pattern of rushing through the process. when the sunshine task force didn't have one member who is disables, they stop and when the ethics commission has miss mean ors going on and the meeting is not properly agendaed and ada violations are going on you have an obligation to stop the meeting until corrections can be made or you are under liability for ada lawsuit. this should be elementary in san francisco and in closure i want to come back to did you remove proceedings in the charter from the deal from the final document from fifteen dot one zero five? did i get that right? a. we haven't taken any action. speaker: okay thank you so much. this removal from office really needs to come forward especially when there's such an unequal application in the laws in this city. thanks. speaker: i'm not
of resources no non filers were being turned over and state laws and authorities are clearer than ours is because this is a state law. however, this wasn't being done so i failed to follow-up and make sure that my directions were being followed and in fact, the practice is to send a letter to filing and then to send a second follow-up letter. when the second letters came from my signature it was already mid-august and i thought it was done months ago and that's my failure to follow through on that and i'm taking full responsibility for that but the practice should be and in the future will be that first we send people late letters and we can assign them up to ten dollars a day for being late. beyond a certain amount of time beyond that we have to assume they don't intend to file and that's when we should be doing referrals but it shouldn't take six months speaker: i /paoerb that and i appreciate what life is like really on the ground /skpw taking responsibility for it. the back and forth of writing to somebody remains private and if they are tossing all the letters then we're stuck in
to hold someone who is a threat to themselves or someone else for 72 hours. we need to enact laura's law and mr. dufty is working on that and finding housing for these individuals but not to keep going back to the economy but one solution is improve the economy so we can improve these people's lives. thank you. >> thank you. >> l the homeless problem it's very, very interesting because you know some cities don't -- i think one of the reasons we do have a problem is because of the wonderful social services that we have here in this city and unfortunately as someone who has sat on several committees it's disheartening that just across the east bay, even if you go to oakland, it changes drastically and i think it's one of the reasons people come to san francisco. do they all live here? absolutely not. and i think we have to get tough with this issue and the housing authority truly needs some restructuring, so that they can do their mandate which is to house people because that's another issue, but there is money missing there, so i think we have to be tough with that and it's like tough
are entrusting you with additional funds to you can go out and ensure that these laws we placed on the books are taken care of. >> and just a point on that, my understanding is that a lot of that money will deal with the backlog that olse has -- adding additional resources. >> we have a number of other departments, olse had a lengthier presentation, hopefully we can move more expeditiously in the other departments. so, we'll now move to the department of public health. welcome. >> thank you so much, supervisors, i want to give you a sense of the city option we've been talking about, then go into the department of public health response tos the civil grand jury report, so we used the term healthy san francisco broadly within san francisco, but we're really talking about from the department's perspective in terms of our response, the city option. that is the option that allows an employer to indicate that they would like to contribute dollars to the city and county of san francisco and their employees will get either eligibility for healthy san francisco and enroll in that program or their emp
or someone else for 72 hours. we need to enact laura's law and mr. dufty is working on that and finding housing for these individuals but not to keep going back to the economy but one solution is improve the economy so we can improve these people's lives. thank you. >> thank you. >> l the homeless problem it's very, very interesting because you know some cities don't -- i think one of the reasons we do have a problem is because of the wonderful social services that we have here in this city and unfortunately as someone who has sat on several committees it's disheartening that just across the east bay, even if you go to oakland, it changes drastically and i think it's one of the reasons people come to san francisco. do they all live here? absolutely not. and i think we have to get tough with this issue and the housing authority truly needs some restructuring, so that they can do their mandate which is to house people because that's another issue, but there is money missing there, so i think we have to be tough with that and it's like tough love but because we do care and it's going ha
of noncompliance of the state law and should be a policy of the commission for that provision. that's one thing. and the other thing i wanted to point out is that the agenda for tonight did not include the minutes. just said that you were going to vote for the minutes. it would be nice if you could put that to the next meeting for those of us who have not seen those have a period to comment. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioner hur and ethic commissioners. i am troubled that you scheduled my two cases on today's agenda. it's unethical for the ethics commission to even decide a case involving your own executive director. and the whole case should have been transferred to another jurisdiction. not just for developing a recommendation. but for holding any sort of public hearing on the matter. mr. chatfield, when he transferred my case to san jose. noted in the cover mail, quote, the ethic's commission regularly handles cases for the sunshine force act. and however cannot be (inaudible) as executive director is the named respondent in both claims, end quote. it should be argued that the ethic
don't want to do is send them back with something passed, and signed into law, that's going to cause them to sort of spin around chasing their tails and ultimately the program doesn't happen because what we've inserted in is a poison pill. i'm not interested in putting any poison pills in here so i have some questions, i'm trying to ferret out whether particularly the second one -- i guess one and two, are poison pills, and also if there are ways that they don't have to be poison pills. so i guess my first question is -- we know that state law requires an opt-out. there's now an amendment that requires, in a way, sort of a preliminary or initial opt-in to show a certain level of support before proceeding. i have -- my question is, for whoever can answer it, whether we are able to do that. to have sort of a -- some form of an opt-in that precedes the opt-out. >> deputy city attorney teresa mueller. supervisor, it's absolutely right that state law prohibits an opt-in for this program and requires opt-out. and our view of this requirement is that it's a requirement for how the program w
is from before the change of law took effect that places restrictions on the ability to give us the health surcharge when we're not spending the money on health care, etc.. >> i'm matthew cohen. i'm glad to be before the supervisors, for one thing, this is the information we had, and when we saw this information, we found that even though we knew more information was going to come out subsequent to that, this is really indicative of a process which we felt was not something that you can merely look away from even with the amendment that was passed, and for one thing, i am kind of concerned that even though money is supposed to be set aside for workers and if you're using the hra's, if the private employers and a considerable amount of them employ their own accounts, this discourages employees from coming in and basically you're telling their employers what you need the medical expenses for, it's an invasion of privacy, i would rather, it's nothing we saw in the revised legislation that actually standardized guidelines, as far as we know, employers can still insist on whatever they can rest
. to me there is absolutely no reason why any law should be an opt-in program such as this. it smells of coercion and that's not something i'm willing to vote for, for my residents in district 2 and for all representatives in san francis san francisco. supervisor campos, i too trust in ed harrington, his qualifications are impeccable but i want concrete numbers if i'm going to vote on nothing, or use that to vote on something and the fact is we have no numbers in front of us, they've never been presented to us, and to articulate that creating local power is a biproduct of this is a fallacy. i think when people articulate that and tell other folks that is part of what we're voting on today, that is untrue. i appreciate the fact that people have differences of opinion about how it may or may not be financed in the future but it is not on the table today and should not be articulated as such. i appreciate people's comments. to me it's a concept of choice. i think having an opt-out program for the residents is absolutely the wrong approach. >> president chiu: supervisor wiener. >> supervi
bmr units. i do see the nexus in my one semester of law school, but i believe the attorney to opine. >> i have two comments. one is thank you for taking care of this beautiful home. if you look at some of the hi storical photos of the panama pacific expo significance of 1915, i believe that home is in a really prominent spot and many of the photographs are taken top of the hill summer street. so, thank you for that. * exposition this is a unique, creative, generous solution. so, i'm in full support. >> commissioner moore. >> this is an extremely difficult case. staff makes recommendation relative to a freestanding building with a roof deck, which is a large historic home. so, we are approving the roof deck and the by-product, bmr units, i'm not saying this is respectful, but it is a reality. what is in front of us, mr. star's analysis is correct, we have a substandard law and five variances for those units to even be approvable. for those small units that is a large ask. under normal circumstances when we have substandard or constrained lots, our purpose is to look at the units fir
.c. berkeley and hastings law school, bob joined a family firm and became active in numerous civic organizations, particularly within the jewish community as well as on our san francisco human rights commission. he also had a love of politics and successfully ran the mccarthy campaign for the board of supervisors. and i know that he will be missed dearly by the community and his family. my third in memoriam is for gary cray who is known by many in the telegraph hill community, my district, as the filbert steps gardner. gary tended to the gardens of the filbert steps, which is one of our city's great hidden treasures for more than three decades. and he took care of the sprawling garden as a volunteer. it was truly a labor of love for him and he was never paid a dime for t. he worked his hearts -- poured his heart into his work to create a clean, green and serene space that many in my neighborhood and throughout the city have grown to love and appreciate. in addition to caring for gardens, he was also someone who was dedicated to our city's architectural heritage and was a co-founder
, they will strike fear. you overwhemingly fear and coerced and overwhelmed with emotions. your in-laws, cousins. and follow instruction. also given the impression that this perpetrators, they believe they are using application drugs to make their victims unconscious and follow instructions. there's no evidence so far, even when i was working in hong kong, we never found any evidence on that. but there is a strong belief in that. second thing i want to say is language barriers. we found out in ones we have attacked in san francisco we find there is a huge limitation in this language services. i'm helping and actually i was donating a lot of my personal time in translating personal documents because they don't have an officer who have capacity of getting document translated. i think i covered most of my points because -- >> i just want to say thank you for your work. i really believe you go across the entire city above and beyond and you have done a lot of volunteering of your time. i'm sure you have done this a lot. i just want to say thank you for your service. it is really important. we rely a
ago and they say proposition 209 is the reason black contractors are not working there. the law has stepped in the way where, today, african-american contractors are not -- not one job in san francisco, are african-americans working on. but a japanese company is controlling 90% of the work in san francisco -- homes, webcore and they do not hire african-american. and i'm saying that something's got to be done. and you guys -- the supervisors, and whether you know it or not, one day this is going to boil over. and when it does, everybody will say they don't know anything about it. but as i was telling some guys the other day, most of you don't know, i'm a veteran, and a disabled american, a war veteran. and i don't understand how i can be in the military, and fight for a country that they got laws now that prevent us from working in it. something is wrong with this whole thing. and particularly the city of st. francis to say there's not one, not one african-american firm working on any job in san francisco. >> president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> i live on 6th street between ho
's actually 6724 that defines what records must be disclosed. the state law into what public information is. >> so i need 6724. >> 6724. >> 6724 actually tells you what -- >> okay. put that on the list for now. that is a fairly important issue though i think. as we define what the public records are, we need to be confident we have that right. >> through the chair an additional point on l. misnumbered l. i will be really brief. >> really brief. >> at the tail end of the sentence it says that a willful violation of sunshine ordinance by elected official or department head occurredment i think you are continuing to drop the key phrase of 6734, that it's elected official department head or city managerial employee. and you should not drop the term, managerial here or throughout the rest of the proposed recommendation. >> okay. referral. means a written document from the task force to the commission initiating an ethics commission complaint. i think that definition can be modified to reflect that the referral is a document from the task force finding a violation of the sunshine ordinance. >> ea
and state laws and authorities are clearer than ours is because this is a state law. however, this wasn't being done so i failed to follow-up and make sure that my directions were being followed and in fact, the practice is to send a letter to filing and then to send a second follow-up letter. when the second letters came from my signature it was already mid-august and i thought it was done months ago and that's my failure to follow through on that and i'm taking full responsibility for that but the practice should be and in the future will be that first we send people late letters and we can assign them up to ten dollars a day for being late. beyond a certain amount of time beyond that we have to assume they don't intend to file and that's when we should be doing referrals but it shouldn't take six months speaker: i /paoerb that and i appreciate what life is like really on the ground /skpw taking responsibility for it. the back and forth of writing to somebody remains private and if they are tossing all the letters then we're stuck in a box where nothing is going to change, commissione
down on june 27th. the governor signed into law a budget, number of budget trailer bills including ab 1484 which amended existing state dissolution law and that bill among other things provided for these successor agencies to be separate, legal entities from the city or county that created them. we would have continued under the direction that you have provided in january under resolution 1112, making sure that we can honor our commitments, wind down activities for these project and housing obligations however we must revisit the structure that you have outlined and provided for. >> this provides for a new successor commission to be created that would have the narrow focus to implement these winding down enforcable obligations. the work yet to complete mission bay, transbay, as well as hunter's point shipyard candle stick and the necessary replacement housing obligations as a product of the urban renewal days, those are still obligations, those 6700 units are still obligation to complete and ensure is funded and exist in the framework of these enforcement obligations, the legislation
without lawful business is prohibited on any sidewalks or ai jay -- property adjacent to licensed premises under control of licensee as depicted on the abc257. no noise shall be automobile beyond the area of control of the licensee as defined by the abc 257. petitioner shall utilize electronic surveillance and recording equipment that is able to view exits and entrance points of exterior of the premises. the surveillance recording shall be operational at all times of premises, open to the public. the electronic recording shall be maintained and kept for minimum of seven days and made available to law enforcement on demand, thank you. >> thank you. >> see nothing questions for you, mark, any comments on this one? >> yes. >> mr. chair, supervisors, i'm excited about . this there was an iconic bar on powell street that went through quite a traumatic episode and had to move down to the war f in the last year. much to the chagrin of the locals and san francisco. this we hope will be a replacement. this is now an off-sale liquor store. i did pass out a photograph of what mr. sirhed's place looks
. the contracting ordinance from 2003 was based on 2003 hearings and federal law makes clear our contracting ordinances that give race and gender preferences must be based on recent hearings. the law -- that chapter, 12d.a has been joined since 2004. the board in 2008 extended the expiration of the ordinance based on the injunction. four years later the ordinance still has been staid, injection not lifted. it is not very clear that the board would need new fact-finding to continue the ordinance in effect. this simply cleans thaup and clears the way for future fact-finding. >> thank you very much. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, closed. questions? move this forward with recommendation? >> so moved. >> we will make that the order without objection. mr. clerk, item 12. >> resolution determining the premises for transfer liquor license to -- 398-12th for the double rainbow. * >> mr. chair, supervisors, my name is mark rennie. i represent double rainbow llc. come on guys. who have made application for determination under 23958 of the business code that the issuance of a typ
how to continue to refine the law in this area, but because the data which i hear again is simply to me appears to be a bit of a rehash of the data we heard last year, that's why i really have some questions about how this old information is trying to be used in a new way to criticize legislation that just went into effect. >> there's a report that just came out, is that what we're talking about, doesn't that follow the same, you know, follow the same reasoning we have? >> i think the olsc report which came out which is 2011 data is a great base line for us to compare, but it doesn't suggest that the law that went into effect on january 1, 2012 isn't going to have its impact, its positive impact. >> the only response that i would have to you, supervisor, is that we'll know more in april when the new data comes out, but we continue -- we've been so invested in this for a year, so naturally we still when we go into restaurants, we ask questions despite your well intended amendment, we still hear the exact same stories, there doesn't seem to be a change that we have noticed so that'
contracting practices. the contracting ordinance from 2003 was based on 2003 hearings and federal law makes clear our contracting ordinances that give race and gender preferences must be based on recent hearings. the law -- that chapter, 12d.a has been joined since 2004. the board in 2008 extended the expiration of the ordinance based on the injunction. four years later the ordinance still has been staid, injection not lifted. it is not very clear that the board would need new fact-finding to continue the ordinance in effect. this simply cleans thaup and clears the way for future fact-finding. >> thank you very much. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, closed. questions? move this forward with recommendation? >> so moved. >> we will make that the order without objection. mr. clerk, item 12. >> resolution determining the premises for transfer liquor license to -- 398-12th for the double rainbow. * >> mr. chair, supervisors, my name is mark rennie. i represent double rainbow llc. come on guys. who have made application for determination under 23958 of the business code that
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 169 (some duplicates have been removed)